11-08-2021, 10:16 AM
![[Image: 252736990_4606451339376234_2775797899831...e=61AFE7B1]](https://scontent-sjc3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/252736990_4606451339376234_2775797899831751482_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=tqFfBtd0ZyQAX-CIvYf&_nc_ht=scontent-sjc3-1.xx&oh=1e52a4dd81394ce4f649400360958ba8&oe=61AFE7B1)
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
Big Game at 4pm PT on Sat 20 Nov 2021
11-08-2021, 12:32 PM
Has a label for something ever been more incorrect?
Please point out to me how many times the "Big Game" was actually big? It has never been played with winner taking North division. Has it ever been played to decide the conference champion?
It couldn't be less big this year if it isn't even played.
Please point out to me how many times the "Big Game" was actually big? It has never been played with winner taking North division. Has it ever been played to decide the conference champion?
It couldn't be less big this year if it isn't even played.
Has a label for something ever been more incorrect?
Please point out to me how many times the "Big Game" was actually big? It has never been played with winner taking North division. Has it ever been played to decide the conference champion?
It couldn't be less big this year if it isn't even played.
Please point out to me how many times the "Big Game" was actually big? It has never been played with winner taking North division. Has it ever been played to decide the conference champion?
It couldn't be less big this year if it isn't even played.
11-08-2021, 01:12 PM
11-08-2021, 01:39 PM
Bob, Cal sucked that year as it does most years, which is my point. Has the game ever been played with the winner winning the Pac? I know "ever" is a long time, so I don't rule it out, but I am not aware that it has ever been played for all the marbles.
As an aside, it has been my dream ever since 1990 that the game would ONE TIME be played with the winner going to the Rose Bowl, or now at least winning the Pac-12 North. It's never happened since then, and I know not in the 80's. It seemed like it might happen some time, a few years ago, but now it seems as unlikely as it ever has.
As an aside, it has been my dream ever since 1990 that the game would ONE TIME be played with the winner going to the Rose Bowl, or now at least winning the Pac-12 North. It's never happened since then, and I know not in the 80's. It seemed like it might happen some time, a few years ago, but now it seems as unlikely as it ever has.
Bob, Cal sucked that year as it does most years, which is my point. Has the game ever been played with the winner winning the Pac? I know "ever" is a long time, so I don't rule it out, but I am not aware that it has ever been played for all the marbles.
As an aside, it has been my dream ever since 1990 that the game would ONE TIME be played with the winner going to the Rose Bowl, or now at least winning the Pac-12 North. It's never happened since then, and I know not in the 80's. It seemed like it might happen some time, a few years ago, but now it seems as unlikely as it ever has.
As an aside, it has been my dream ever since 1990 that the game would ONE TIME be played with the winner going to the Rose Bowl, or now at least winning the Pac-12 North. It's never happened since then, and I know not in the 80's. It seemed like it might happen some time, a few years ago, but now it seems as unlikely as it ever has.
11-08-2021, 02:03 PM
(11-08-2021, 01:51 PM)BobK Wrote: I’m sorry but cal doesn’t go the the Rose Bowl. So that ends that
In my lifetime, Cal had the best team in the Pac with Mike White as coach and Chuck Muncie as RB. Muncie ran wild on Stanford in that Big Game, and the Bears were better than the P8/10 rep in the Rose Bowl . . . and it wasn't even close. Another, more recent year (but still a long time ago) Cal was on the cusp of earning the #1 ranking in the country, iirc, but then choked away a game against Oregon State, and never regained top form. Those two teams are the best Cal teams I recall.
But no, I don't think Stanford and Cal have both been really good (or better) the same season.
P.S. That film of Casey's run for the Roses was in 1999. The Old Lady looked jammed. Hell, the sunny side alone had more than we've ever seen at the new stadium. That was roughly 20 years ago. Man, has interest in Stanford football dropped off a cliff.
(11-08-2021, 01:51 PM)BobK Wrote: I’m sorry but cal doesn’t go the the Rose Bowl. So that ends that
In my lifetime, Cal had the best team in the Pac with Mike White as coach and Chuck Muncie as RB. Muncie ran wild on Stanford in that Big Game, and the Bears were better than the P8/10 rep in the Rose Bowl . . . and it wasn't even close. Another, more recent year (but still a long time ago) Cal was on the cusp of earning the #1 ranking in the country, iirc, but then choked away a game against Oregon State, and never regained top form. Those two teams are the best Cal teams I recall.
But no, I don't think Stanford and Cal have both been really good (or better) the same season.
P.S. That film of Casey's run for the Roses was in 1999. The Old Lady looked jammed. Hell, the sunny side alone had more than we've ever seen at the new stadium. That was roughly 20 years ago. Man, has interest in Stanford football dropped off a cliff.
11-08-2021, 02:21 PM
Cal was so bad in 1999 that its best "offensive" play was a Deltha O'Neal pick 6.
Anyway, my point stands. The Big Game is not now and never has truly been a Big Game. It might have once attracted a large crowd, but the game itself has never been between two teams playing in a truly big game for a conference title, and certainly never national implications.
It should be called something else. It's just embarrassing to continue calling it the Big Game. It's not a credible representation, and nobody in the Bay Area cares about the game now anyway.
David Shaw is party to blame because he was the one who basically stopped doing the traditional promotional silliness that kept the game's relevance alive in some form or fashion, for the Bay Area writ large, the week of the game.
Anyway, my point stands. The Big Game is not now and never has truly been a Big Game. It might have once attracted a large crowd, but the game itself has never been between two teams playing in a truly big game for a conference title, and certainly never national implications.
It should be called something else. It's just embarrassing to continue calling it the Big Game. It's not a credible representation, and nobody in the Bay Area cares about the game now anyway.
David Shaw is party to blame because he was the one who basically stopped doing the traditional promotional silliness that kept the game's relevance alive in some form or fashion, for the Bay Area writ large, the week of the game.
Cal was so bad in 1999 that its best "offensive" play was a Deltha O'Neal pick 6.
Anyway, my point stands. The Big Game is not now and never has truly been a Big Game. It might have once attracted a large crowd, but the game itself has never been between two teams playing in a truly big game for a conference title, and certainly never national implications.
It should be called something else. It's just embarrassing to continue calling it the Big Game. It's not a credible representation, and nobody in the Bay Area cares about the game now anyway.
David Shaw is party to blame because he was the one who basically stopped doing the traditional promotional silliness that kept the game's relevance alive in some form or fashion, for the Bay Area writ large, the week of the game.
Anyway, my point stands. The Big Game is not now and never has truly been a Big Game. It might have once attracted a large crowd, but the game itself has never been between two teams playing in a truly big game for a conference title, and certainly never national implications.
It should be called something else. It's just embarrassing to continue calling it the Big Game. It's not a credible representation, and nobody in the Bay Area cares about the game now anyway.
David Shaw is party to blame because he was the one who basically stopped doing the traditional promotional silliness that kept the game's relevance alive in some form or fashion, for the Bay Area writ large, the week of the game.
11-08-2021, 02:34 PM
(11-08-2021, 01:39 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Bob, Cal sucked that year as it does most years, which is my point. Has the game ever been played with the winner winning the Pac? I know "ever" is a long time, so I don't rule it out, but I am not aware that it has ever been played for all the marbles.
As an aside, it has been my dream ever since 1990 that the game would ONE TIME be played with the winner going to the Rose Bowl, or now at least winning the Pac-12 North. It's never happened since then, and I know not in the 80's. It seemed like it might happen some time, a few years ago, but now it seems as unlikely as it ever has.
1937
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
(11-08-2021, 01:39 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Bob, Cal sucked that year as it does most years, which is my point. Has the game ever been played with the winner winning the Pac? I know "ever" is a long time, so I don't rule it out, but I am not aware that it has ever been played for all the marbles.
As an aside, it has been my dream ever since 1990 that the game would ONE TIME be played with the winner going to the Rose Bowl, or now at least winning the Pac-12 North. It's never happened since then, and I know not in the 80's. It seemed like it might happen some time, a few years ago, but now it seems as unlikely as it ever has.
1937
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
11-08-2021, 02:48 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-08-2021, 02:49 PM by Spiny_Norman.)
I've seen some Big Games that were not very well played by either team (see especially 1997). But even then, they were still Big Games. Stanford vs. Cal is and always will be a rivalry game that matters a lot, regardless of the team records.
Hal Mickelson explains why.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMo0OgX46qk
Hal Mickelson explains why.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMo0OgX46qk
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
(This post was last modified: 11-08-2021, 02:49 PM by Spiny_Norman.)
I've seen some Big Games that were not very well played by either team (see especially 1997). But even then, they were still Big Games. Stanford vs. Cal is and always will be a rivalry game that matters a lot, regardless of the team records.
Hal Mickelson explains why.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMo0OgX46qk
Hal Mickelson explains why.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMo0OgX46qk
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
11-08-2021, 02:59 PM
(11-08-2021, 02:21 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Cal was so bad in 1999 that its best "offensive" play was a Deltha O'Neal pick 6.
Anyway, my point stands. The Big Game is not now and never has truly been a Big Game. It might have once attracted a large crowd, but the game itself has never been between two teams playing in a truly big game for a conference title, and certainly never national implications.
It should be called something else. It's just embarrassing to continue calling it the Big Game. It's not a credible representation, and nobody in the Bay Area cares about the game now anyway.
David Shaw is party to blame because he was the one who basically stopped doing the traditional promotional silliness that kept the game's relevance
alive in some form or fashion, for the Bay Area writ large, the week of the game.
The "Big Game" is a Title. Just like WSU vs UW is the "Apple Cup", Oregon vs OSU is, or was, known as The "Civil War." Harvard vs Yale is known as "The Game", BYU vs Utah is the "Holy War". Stanford vs Cal was dubbed the "Big Game" in 1900, when there was no other game around.
Should the title change with the fortunes of the programs? I think not. Personally I like the Title, a lot. I read recently that Athlon Sports rated it as one of the Top 10 Rivalry nicknames in college football. I agree.
(11-08-2021, 02:21 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Cal was so bad in 1999 that its best "offensive" play was a Deltha O'Neal pick 6.
Anyway, my point stands. The Big Game is not now and never has truly been a Big Game. It might have once attracted a large crowd, but the game itself has never been between two teams playing in a truly big game for a conference title, and certainly never national implications.
It should be called something else. It's just embarrassing to continue calling it the Big Game. It's not a credible representation, and nobody in the Bay Area cares about the game now anyway.
David Shaw is party to blame because he was the one who basically stopped doing the traditional promotional silliness that kept the game's relevance
alive in some form or fashion, for the Bay Area writ large, the week of the game.
The "Big Game" is a Title. Just like WSU vs UW is the "Apple Cup", Oregon vs OSU is, or was, known as The "Civil War." Harvard vs Yale is known as "The Game", BYU vs Utah is the "Holy War". Stanford vs Cal was dubbed the "Big Game" in 1900, when there was no other game around.
Should the title change with the fortunes of the programs? I think not. Personally I like the Title, a lot. I read recently that Athlon Sports rated it as one of the Top 10 Rivalry nicknames in college football. I agree.
11-08-2021, 03:31 PM
I'll admit that I've let myself get swept up in the negativity of this season's poor results. But I'm not going to let that downplay Big Game. It will always be big for me. Always. You only need to recall the awful feeling of seeing a Berkeley person gloat to know that you never want it to happen again.
I'll admit that I've let myself get swept up in the negativity of this season's poor results. But I'm not going to let that downplay Big Game. It will always be big for me. Always. You only need to recall the awful feeling of seeing a Berkeley person gloat to know that you never want it to happen again.
11-08-2021, 03:57 PM
(11-08-2021, 12:32 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Has a label for something ever been more incorrect?
Please point out to me how many times the "Big Game" was actually big? It has never been played with winner taking North division. Has it ever been played to decide the conference champion?
It couldn't be less big this year if it isn't even played.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZXycyHsKhA
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
(11-08-2021, 12:32 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Has a label for something ever been more incorrect?
Please point out to me how many times the "Big Game" was actually big? It has never been played with winner taking North division. Has it ever been played to decide the conference champion?
It couldn't be less big this year if it isn't even played.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZXycyHsKhA
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
11-08-2021, 04:25 PM
1971. Bunce/Brown and the Chickens over Cal 14-0. In white unis!!! at the old Farm.
Only losses were at home: Dook, WSU, SJS (the Dave Chaney game). No way that team was going to play in red.
Only losses were at home: Dook, WSU, SJS (the Dave Chaney game). No way that team was going to play in red.
11-08-2021, 06:13 PM
If Harvard-Yale can be called The Game, Stanford-Cal can be called The Big Game.
And if you look at Stanford’s schedule from the early days when the name originated, the game was clearly the biggest.
And if you look at Stanford’s schedule from the early days when the name originated, the game was clearly the biggest.
11-08-2021, 06:23 PM
"The Big Game" refers to a cultural clash associated with an athletic contest, not to the athletic contest itself.
The game will always be at the center of something "BIG" even if the game itself is small.
Hence these kinds of things:
https://www.stanforddaily.com/2017/11/16...daily-cal/
The game will always be at the center of something "BIG" even if the game itself is small.
Hence these kinds of things:
https://www.stanforddaily.com/2017/11/16...daily-cal/
"The Big Game" refers to a cultural clash associated with an athletic contest, not to the athletic contest itself.
The game will always be at the center of something "BIG" even if the game itself is small.
Hence these kinds of things:
https://www.stanforddaily.com/2017/11/16...daily-cal/
The game will always be at the center of something "BIG" even if the game itself is small.
Hence these kinds of things:
https://www.stanforddaily.com/2017/11/16...daily-cal/
11-08-2021, 06:45 PM
I've attended every Big Game since 1979, the year I moved to California, except for last year, and I'll be there on November 20 [I shudder when I type that date]. Do I get to claim that my consecutive BG attendance streak is intact? Do I need an asterisk [and, if so, should I use a COVID molecule emoji]?
I hate people when they're not polite
I've attended every Big Game since 1979, the year I moved to California, except for last year, and I'll be there on November 20 [I shudder when I type that date]. Do I get to claim that my consecutive BG attendance streak is intact? Do I need an asterisk [and, if so, should I use a COVID molecule emoji]?
I hate people when they're not polite
11-08-2021, 07:17 PM
(11-08-2021, 07:09 PM)needle Wrote: Am I dumb or isn’t it just “Big Game” rather than “The Big Game?”
I think you are correct. Of course there was that lawsuit in 2007 when the NFL tried to trademark "The Big Game"....
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/N...573935.php
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
(11-08-2021, 07:09 PM)needle Wrote: Am I dumb or isn’t it just “Big Game” rather than “The Big Game?”
I think you are correct. Of course there was that lawsuit in 2007 when the NFL tried to trademark "The Big Game"....
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/N...573935.php
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
11-08-2021, 10:02 PM
(11-08-2021, 12:32 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Has a label for something ever been more incorrect?
Please point out to me how many times the "Big Game" was actually big? It has never been played with winner taking North division. Has it ever been played to decide the conference champion?
It couldn't be less big this year if it isn't even played.
You must be fun at parties.
BC
(11-08-2021, 12:32 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Has a label for something ever been more incorrect?
Please point out to me how many times the "Big Game" was actually big? It has never been played with winner taking North division. Has it ever been played to decide the conference champion?
It couldn't be less big this year if it isn't even played.
You must be fun at parties.
BC
(11-08-2021, 01:39 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Bob, Cal sucked that year as it does most years, which is my point. Has the game ever been played with the winner winning the Pac? I know "ever" is a long time, so I don't rule it out, but I am not aware that it has ever been played for all the marbles.
As an aside, it has been my dream ever since 1990 that the game would ONE TIME be played with the winner going to the Rose Bowl, or now at least winning the Pac-12 North. It's never happened since then, and I know not in the 80's. It seemed like it might happen some time, a few years ago, but now it seems as unlikely as it ever has.
1920
1924
1935
1937
1971
(11-08-2021, 02:21 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Cal was so bad in 1999 that its best "offensive" play was a Deltha O'Neal pick 6.
Anyway, my point stands. The Big Game is not now and never has truly been a Big Game. It might have once attracted a large crowd, but the game itself has never been between two teams playing in a truly big game for a conference title, and certainly never national implications.
It should be called something else. It's just embarrassing to continue calling it the Big Game. It's not a credible representation, and nobody in the Bay Area cares about the game now anyway.
David Shaw is party to blame because he was the one who basically stopped doing the traditional promotional silliness that kept the game's relevance alive in some form or fashion, for the Bay Area writ large, the week of the game.
It was the biggest annual sporting event in Northern California for decades. I can remember the days when a neighborhood “split” family would have a brobdingnagian party every year with cakes decorated half red and half blue. It was a veryhuge deal back in the day…
It will always be The Big Game…
(11-08-2021, 01:39 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Bob, Cal sucked that year as it does most years, which is my point. Has the game ever been played with the winner winning the Pac? I know "ever" is a long time, so I don't rule it out, but I am not aware that it has ever been played for all the marbles.
As an aside, it has been my dream ever since 1990 that the game would ONE TIME be played with the winner going to the Rose Bowl, or now at least winning the Pac-12 North. It's never happened since then, and I know not in the 80's. It seemed like it might happen some time, a few years ago, but now it seems as unlikely as it ever has.
1920
1924
1935
1937
1971
(11-08-2021, 02:21 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Cal was so bad in 1999 that its best "offensive" play was a Deltha O'Neal pick 6.
Anyway, my point stands. The Big Game is not now and never has truly been a Big Game. It might have once attracted a large crowd, but the game itself has never been between two teams playing in a truly big game for a conference title, and certainly never national implications.
It should be called something else. It's just embarrassing to continue calling it the Big Game. It's not a credible representation, and nobody in the Bay Area cares about the game now anyway.
David Shaw is party to blame because he was the one who basically stopped doing the traditional promotional silliness that kept the game's relevance alive in some form or fashion, for the Bay Area writ large, the week of the game.
It was the biggest annual sporting event in Northern California for decades. I can remember the days when a neighborhood “split” family would have a brobdingnagian party every year with cakes decorated half red and half blue. It was a veryhuge deal back in the day…
It will always be The Big Game…
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »